Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 166 (MP)

Mudrika Prasad Tiwari v. S. K. Jha

2017-02-01

ANJULI PALO

body2017
ORDER : Heard leaned counsel for the parties. This contempt petition has been filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 2-3-2015 passed in W.P. No. 19595/205. 2. In reply the respondents have submitted that order Annexure-R/1 has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. As per the report filed by the respondents nothing is remained for payment. The claim of the petitioner was rejected as Rs. 2,38,238/- was overdue in the account of house loan taken by the petitioner. 3. In rejoinder the petitioner has stated that he had taken a loan from the respondents for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the year 1998 for a period of 20 years and Rs. 1,400/- p.m. installment was deducted from his salary. Till year 2012 Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited in his loan account. As per house loan rule, the amount cannot be deducted from cash reward. As the respondents have misguided the Courts, they are liable to be punished. 4. The respondents replied to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner by alleging that after called up all the documents and details from the account section they decided that the petitioner is not entitled for any claim. Copies of decision dated 14/17-12-2016 (Annexure-R/2) is filed along with the affidavit of Dilip Kumar Singh. 5. Annexure-R/2 shows that backwages for the period of March, 2011 to 14-11-2012 not due in favour of the petitioner, which was already paid to him as is evident from pay slips of March, 2011 to March, 2012. Annexure-R/2 also indicates that Rs. 56,800/- and interest of Rs. 2,16,246/- are due in house loan account. 6. In case of Manjula v. Priyanka, 2015 (4) M.P.L.J. 704 the Division Bench of this Court has held that “once there is an order passed by the Government, on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arise a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. Order may be wrong or may be right or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order.” 7. Order may be wrong or may be right or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order.” 7. In view of the aforesaid and also considering the Annexures-A/1 and A/2, no further indulgence is called for and this Court cannot initiate action for contempt against the respondents. If the petitioner is still aggrieved in the matter, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid, the contempt petition stands disposed of.